Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Archive 2

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Archive 2

Bootcamps

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Bootcamp and comment on its talk page. The first one was very successful; they are currently running every night at midnight. And consider adding {{Bootcamp}} to your welcome messages!

I just came across this and I think it's a great idea - adds a whole new dimension to the Wikipedia Experience(TM) for new users. Are there or will there be any chatlogs, to get an idea of what goes on without being a n^th wheel at the real thing? T.PK 05:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. We're now having bootcamps again every night at midnight; will start posting logs somewhere off of the Bootcamp page. +sj + 14:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, please consider adding the bootcamp template to welcome messages.

Maps Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Archive 2

Reworking the introductory pages?

We currently have a small network of pages (Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:About, and Wikipedia:Tutorial) that serve in one way or another to introduce new folks to Wikipedia. There have been two recent attempts to redirect Welcome, newcomers to Introduction, and one attempt to similarly redirect the Tutorial frontpage.

With that in mind, I think it's time to have a full discussion of what the purpose of each of these pages is, what each should contain, and how they should work together. If we really don't need one or more of them, we need to decide how to merge it without losing anything important. Isomorphic 18:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I propose consolidating the pages into two: Wikipedia:Introduction, which would remain exactly as it is as a quick and easy primer on editing (so as to avoid scaring off newcomers with excessive detail) and the full editing tutorial. Redirect Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to the intro. -- Dan | Talk 00:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we need two pages. Wikipedia:Introduction page for all newcomers (including non-editors) and Wikipedia:Tutorial (an editing tutorial for new editors). utcursch 06:25, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

There is overlap, but I don't find them particularly redundant, as they are aimed at different target audiences, and any merging will put a bunch of info the reader is NOT looking for in amongst what they ARE looking for. "About" should be kept for people seeking info about Wikipedia, that probably aren't interested in using it as a resource, or becoming an editor; eg journalists. The Tutorial should be kept for people wanting to know how to edit and behave, without having to sift thru the hundreds (thousands?) of Wikipedia documentation articles--MoS, Policy, etc. "Welcome, newcomers" specifically targets people who register, which generally means they intend to become editors (whether that means new contributions or other forms of 'housekeeping'), so a more general intro is less helpful. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia:Introduction (high glitz to substance ratio, eye-searing color, and overly focuses on talking people into editting, at the expense of behavior guidance and all the other ways to help Wikipedia, eg 'housekeeping'), but since most of the editors wanting to condense these seem bent on pushing it, there probably isn't much chance of getting that train off its tracks. Also, until the Paging feature is added to 'what links here', I'd be reluctant to redir any page with more than 500 incoming links (as all four of these have) because of the risk of undetectable broken redirects. Niteowlneils 21:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget Wikipedia may currently be the most visited "introduction" page, as it is linked to in a way that suggests it's an introduction page from the main page. It is, however, not intended as an introduction page, and that is reflected in it's writing.Nectarflowed 04:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

Has this happened to other people?

I started welcoming newcomers less than a week ago, but since I started my Welcome message template has been blanked twice by people whom I'd welcomed: once by Anderdons and once (last night) by Chadbryant. Neither gave any reason, either by leaving me a message or by giving an edit summary. I've contacted both of them, but received no answer.

I'd had no other contact with either user - had edited no pages that they've edited, etc. - so, unless they have other user accounts, I assume that it's not personal.

Any ideas as to what's going on? Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 10:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never happened to me. Some thoughts. You could use ((subst:welcome)) to include the message. And your message is very big and colourful, perhaps something less would be more appealling -- Zeimusu | Talk 12:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right about the the last point -- I originally thought that the splash of colour would be more welcoming, but I'm beginning to think that it could also be overwhelming. I still don't see why two people, apparently independently, would blank my template, though. Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 13:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I came across your template on a new user's page. Yikes! Just a *tad* overpowering!!! I mean, the welcome message is nice, but for those not understanding recent changes, watchlists, etc., it must seem a bit big-brother-ish and/or stalking. Don't get me wrong, I think the welcome message is good, but I think a sedate plain text welcome with the useful links is enough.

Mel - I would be feel quite imposed upon if as a new user that loud template was dropped on my page! Plus I think putting a template can confuse new users. Subst is a much better idea (they can even then amend, shorten tidy up the links and even use on userpage for reference).

zoney ? talk 13:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it; is this OK now (Welcome)? (The failure to use 'subst:' was a mistake caused by my simply imitating someone else rather than reading the relevant Wiki-pages carefully; I've started doing it properly). Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 13:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of new users don't realize they're not supposed to delete messages from talk pages. They figure, "I read it, now I can delete it". I wouldn't take it personally. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 11:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Never had a problem with people blanking mine, but I subst: the template. I know some editors dislike "mechanical" welcomes, so I've been making a point to introduce some personalized greeting along with it. Takes more time, sure, but the welcome feels more authentic instead of just cookie-cutter. Keep up the good work! ~Kylu (u|t) 17:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Welcoming vandals

I've noticed on a few occasions that Sam Spade has welcomed new Users who have done nothing but vandalise Wikipedia -- I assume that that's because he welcomes them without checking their Contributions (for the same reason, he's also had complaints from long-time editors who see the Welcome template as a suggestion that they've been mis-editing). I've just blocked one user for vandalising user pages - the only edits he's made - and there on his Talk page was SS's Welcome notice. I haven't noticed this with anyone else, but I imagine that SS isn't alone in this.

I've always checked Contributions before Welcoming, so that I can add a message about the Welcome being late, for example, and so that I don't welcome malicious accounts. Could we make that at least an explicit recommendation to Welcoming Committee members, if not a requirement? Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 10:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea; I feel it's always important to check contributions. It makes it easier to be able to say something relevant, whether it's "sorry about the belated welcome" or "stop vandalizing" or "you've done a really great job on X" or "you may want to read policy Y" or whatever. JYolkowski 14:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about this; what do you think? Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 10:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. JYolkowski 19:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a bit on complimenting them for what they've done. I haven't greeted much in a while, but I always like to thank people for an article they've written, or a substantial improvement they've made. That way it's more personal, and they know that the work they're doing is noticed and appreciated. Isomorphic 20:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe hes a guilter - he leaves a nice welcoming notice so the user feels guilty that they are vandalising. kill them with kindness? -Ravedave 17:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. The test1-test5 series is also funny. "Pretty please???" "Please." "Don't." "Nonsense!" "BLOCKED!!!!!" Deckiller 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that this is still live; I came to raise it again, after a discussion at User talk:Benedict the Moor#Welcoming new users. He'd left a welcome message ("thanks for your contributions...") at User talk:Tityboy whose only contribution was this. His response was to say that he prefers carrots to sticks, etc., but it seems to me that thanking someone for a piece of out-and-out vandalism is at best unhelpful. Perhaps the advice about welcoming vandals could be beefed up a little. --Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 13:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I asked User:Just H in December why he was welcoming a vandal, his reply was "I just look at the Recent Changes page, often without looking at edits. That plus WP:AGF. If we don't AGF, we validate why they do what they do."

My main problem with that, is it makes it unclear to editors coming afterwards to give the user warnings, that the welcomed-user is actually already a problem-user. (Yes, warnings can be removed, and other WP:BEAN considerations, but thanking someone who added obscenities doesnt help them take us seriously). Please do emphasize the advice about not welcoming vandals, and taking the time to check edit histories. Thanks. --Quiddity 02:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bit extra; do you think that it should be even stronger? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

src: i1.wp.com

User:Bluejean

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bluejean. This newbie needs some help. -- 199.71.174.100 05:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

->Iñg?lemo<- has taken good care of this newbie. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 21:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

src: marinkavandam.com

watch out for new user contributions on *FD?

I've noticed more than one instance lately where a new user's contribution ended up on a *FD page, and pretty much as a direct result the new user became an ex-user. As part of welcoming new users, can we all watch for these situations and try our best to help out the new user? How many of us would still be here if our first new article immediately ended up on WP:VFD or our first categorization project ended up on WP:CFD? I suspect the deletion processes are difficult enough for experienced editors to handle - I'm sure they're downright traumatic for new users. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

One thing I personally do is avoid VfDing contributions by new users or anons until days or weeks after creation, even if the article is obviously not encyclopedic. I note the article on one of my user subpages, and nominate it whenever I get around to it. That way, the user might come back some day and discover the article gone, but they probably won't be present for the VfD discussion. Not seeing the discussion is definitely a good thing, since the author's opinion is unlikely to affect the outcome, but the process of discovering this is often unpleasant. Isomorphic 03:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This sounds very reasonable to me. Any chance we could make this policy? I think it might also be nicer in these cases to post a carefully worded message to the author's talk page first (perhaps even offering to assist in making whatever it is better), before throwing something they've done to the deletionist wolves. Granted, this may be much more work (especially if you offer some help and they take you up on your offer!), but IMO it's what it will take to make Wikipedia a welcoming place. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm not a member of your group here or anything, but I'd like to point out that leaving totally unencyclopedic articles, misplaced Userpages, etc. in the main namespace just for the sake of being "welcoming" isn't exactly the tightest logic. If they have an account, then they should have already gotten the notice to read the rules. If they didn't read the rules, that's their fault. If they don't have an account, well, there's not much you can do there. --tjstrf 08:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the original idea, however, the idea could meet some resistance IMO. I mean, many editors might not wish to have their work "downgraded" if a few people wind up looking at these "speedy-deleteable" articles. --Root2 02:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

New template

Just wanted to announce a new welcome template: {{welcome4|yourusername}}

Because the existing welcome templates are so similar in design, I put together this template; I tend to be the second person to welcome a given user, and it offers information that the other templates don't, or at least don't explicitly. Also, by using the "yourusername" field, an automatic link to your talk page is included (because not everybody's signature links to thier talk page, and other's are very difficult to figure out.) All you have to do is add the template and sign it.

The template renders like this (with my user name and signature inserted):

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 09:42, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I actually propose to change the standard welcome with this brand new template :

{{subst:Welcome123}} Wich is shown like this :

This template was my absolute bible at my begining in wikipedia (yes I'm still a beginner ^^) but it really reeaaaallllyyyy helped me. Everything from policy to tutorial to manual of styles are there. And it's eye candy and fit perfectly in an empty talk page. Esurnir 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice-looking, but big and clunky. I don't see any chance of a replacement for {{welcome}}. ????c??? 04:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

src: cdn-s3.si.com

Growing Expertise

See my idea AlMac/Growing Expertise and perhaps apply it first to people getting better in how to edit Wikipedia. AlMac 6 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

how folks find new users

How are folks actually finding new users at this point? Watching special:recentchanges (but for what, new user pages?)? Please post here how you actually find new users, if your technique has not already been posted. Refinements would be interesting as well. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Watching Wikipedia:Help desk for questions from new users. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like to use a database query, perhaps something like Special:Listusers&from=20050710152751 (the from string is a date), but this doesn't work. Has anyone written this up as a feature request? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Watching Wikipedia:New user log is a good source, as is Wikipedia:Clueless newbies. -- Essjay · Talk 17:09, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know if it works or not, but Special:Contributions/newbies is available. -- Essjay · Talk 17:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I target new Australian editors. As such, I rock up to any talk-page with a red link on my watchlist (which is quite extensive: 1300+ pages). -- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 10:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• I troll the Recent Changes and find users with redlinks and leave a message at their page. Redwolf24 10:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Here's two ways I haven't seen mentioned yet: I check the page histories of Wikipedia:Sandbox and Wikipedia:Introduction for test edits. You (Talk) 13:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I watch recent changes and new pages for users with red talk links. I also welcome newbies on my watchlist and at the new user log. (I wish there was a log of new account creations, e.g. a Special:Newusers.) -- Bcat (talk | email) 18:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• If you don't mind being second in line to welcome, you can e-stalk Redwolf24; he welcomes more people than anyone I know. I think he's really registering the accounts himself just so he can look good! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 04:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't look for them per se, I just welcome newbies when I run across them, especially on pages I started or pages on my watchlist. From the beginning, I've thought that a dynamically-generated list of the most recently registered accounts would be a useful tool. If someone can get the developers to make a special page for that (something like Special:newusers), that'd be perfect. Isomorphic 04:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • When I welcomed more often, I usually watched recentchanges looking for red-linked user talk pages. Isomorphic 04:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• I follow the Redwolf24 method as well. Thats how he welcomed me, almost to 500 edits now. :) -Ravedave 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I check recent edits and leave welcome messages on accounts of new users and those who haven't been greeted (after checking to ensure they are not vandals). Also, if I'm editing an article and see someone in the history who hasn't been, I post one on theirs, too. I've done about 60 tonight. Michael 08:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

src: bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com

Vandals and Uncyclopedia

For all the new users who are 'joke' vandals, ie, those who adding silly things to pages but are not being particularly malicous, maybe you coud direct them to uncyclopedia. Just an idea Uberisaac 11:07, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

src: cdn-s3.si.com

Template for the unregistered

Is a template available for the unregistered, one to encourage them to register as a Wikipedian? (See User talk:130.18.49.203 for an example.) -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 17:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to use either {{anon}} or {{welcomeip}} or even both. {{Anon}} is probably the better of the two.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

For something more concise, {{thanks}} is good, too. HKT ^talk 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

src: d194ip2226q57d.cloudfront.net

Overenthusiatic welcomers

Can project members calm down a bit? Having now been welcomed twice, despite been doing minor edits for ages, and having the first edit with this username nearly a year ago, I'm beginning to wonder if people should really spend more time on writing articles rather than looking for noobs to glomp. At least write into the policy something about checking contributions and the history of the talk page, I don't want to have to leave a giant garish table on my talk page just to scare off future pouncers. --zippedmartin 16:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Personally I dislike template "greetings" anyway. If you haven't checked their contributions, and you just use a generic template, that's not a greeting. It's more like handing them a brochure as they walk in the door. Not to demean those who put time into this, but everyone please do think about this. Isomorphic 16:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I've received a "thank you so much for the information" message after leaving a welcome message for a user with a redlinked talk page; I know I haven't received half the thank you messages that Redwolf24 has received.

Perhaps we are overwelcoming people, and it would be a good idea to cool it, I mean, so what if there are a few extra clueless newbies out there, they certainly aren't going to do anything that would be anywhere near as annoying as occasionally welcoming an established contributor. I mean, Jesus, some innocent contributor who has been here for four years and has never had a message on his talk page is going about his edits and all of a sudden the orange bar of death shows up on the top of his talk page, and he goes to find out that someone has rudely informed him that his presence on the site has been noted and someone appreciates him being here and if he has any questions they are willing to answer them! I mean, good God, if someone did that to me, I think I'd leave the project, I'd be so offended!

Sarcasm aside, welcoming new users is important, it lets them know that they are appreciated and encourages them to stay around. If an existing contributor occasionally is welcomed, then he or she should be flattered that someone has noticed him/her and appreciates his presence. Welcome messages are an absolute good, and do no harm to the accidentally-welcomed established user; if you get one, delete it, but leave something, like a note that says "Thanks for the welcomes, but I've been here for a year" on your talk page. If you're a blue link, for the most part you won't show up on the serial welcomer's radar. Jimbo 18:5-6: And whoever receives one new user such as this in the name of Jimbo receives Jimbo. -- Essjay · Talk 07:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you're being welcomed over and over again, are you cleaning out your talk page? Anyways, I've been welcomed 3 4 times, the first time I already had 300 edits. My last welcome I Had about 3000 edits then I realized its cause on my listing I wrote "Though I was never welcomed" and people thought it a shame. As for me, I do use a templated welcome but I look a bit at contributions sometimes and say, P.S. I love the Allman Brothers! (if they just edited an article on them...) Anyways I have welcomed a troll or two or three but I've also welcomed over 300 good users so who cares about the .5 percent of welcomed vandals? Also, if you've been around for months and never welcomed til then, you must not've been very active. Hmm this comment seems rather out of order but point is I do not see the point of Zippedmartin. By the way all of us in WP:WC still do work on articles a lot. Often its when we can't find anything else to do that we work on welcoming. Redwolf24 08:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Or when I don't feel well and I'm laying on the couch, I do a lot of welcomes. Its easier. :) ?Who?¿? 08:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Also useful for artificially inflating user contributions to increase the chances of having your RfA approved! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 08:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I always make a point to check the user contribs, if they only have one or two edits, I probably wont' welcome them just yet, not to scare them off. If they have been registerd for awhile and only have a few edits, I customize my greeting to match that. However, I never welcome a user who has tons of edits that has been registered awhile, and of course I try not to welcome the vandals :p. Other than that, I think, although my template is big, it has a fair amount of good information on it, and usually answers all the questions they endup asking or looking for info on. I'm sad to say that I dont' get nearly the amount of thank you's, but thats ok too. ?Who?¿? 08:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, Zipped Martin only has 256 contributions. Spreading that out over a year he hasn't been terribly active, explaining the late welcome. He then cleared out that welcome message, which is why he was welcomed again. Redwolf24 08:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yea I only welcome red-links, never know if they cleared it or not. ?Who?¿? 08:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if I qualify as an overenthusiastic welcomer. :P I usually don't check their contributions unless their last edit on RC was suspicious. I get a lot of mostly positive feedback from new users (see my talk page and archives). Even users who aren't new are generally happy to see some hospitality. I don't use the normal Welcome template. Instead, I customized it. (see it here). I think it's a bit more personal. Nonetheless, it is still a mere form letter, but it's the best we can do. Most people appreciate enthusiasm, so I don't think we need to change anything. Ryan 09:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I posted that because I'd always assumed welcome messages were a response to an editor seeing the tentative first steps of an editor in the article history, but obviously part of the project is just to hand a leaflet out to any Talk links people see on the Special:Recent changes page. I don't see any harm in the policy, I was just slightly bemused to discover welcomers don't actually take any interest in what the contributor has done. Obviously it's a way of reaching a lot of people without much effort, so fair enough - occasional pokers like me are probably an uncommon case. --zippedmartin 22:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You're being a bit unfair, Martin. We often do take in interest, but there are dozens or hundreds of new users showing up all the time. It'd be impossible to welcome all of them without either a huge amount of manpower (and really, we'd rather that people spend their time writing an encyclopedia) or taking some shortcuts like templates or copy/pasting. I usually spend some time on my welcomes, but as a result people would be waiting forever to be greeted if everyone did it like I do. Personally, I think the ideal is for everyone at Wikipedia to make a habit of greeting new users that starts editing in their area. That spreads the work around and also makes it more personal. Isomorphic 06:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, didn't mean to sound negative earlier. Redwolf, Essjay, Ryan, you guys do great work. I was just kind of picking nits. Oh, and Redwolf... stuff like adding the "P.S., I love the Allman Brothers" is cool. Another idea is to occasionally try to point a newbie at an appropriate WikiProject, since WikiProjects are not always easy to find but can be good sources of info on a specific area of Wikipedia. Isomorphic 06:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Not entirely unfair, as my suggestion was just to check the contributions of a user you want to welcome, which everyone above has pretty much rejected on the grounds that everyone loves a welcome. It is much less effort just to stick a template on a talk page, and if that's helpful to a majority of people then I can see why the committee isn't interested in spending more time per person. I personally think that it's be nice if people could try and give some info based on the areas that a new editor is interested in, but you're the ones putting time and effort it, it's your call. --zippedmartin 12:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You have a point there. I've run into some users who know several, less common languages that use their knowledge to improve those areas. Yet, I usually don't have to redirect them to those special interest areas. They find their way fairly easy. Then again, I find people who haven't a clue what they are doing. They often write back, asking for further assistance. And I am more than happy to help out. Welcoming isn't a drop-the-template-and-run job. It progresses to mentoring and friendship. Ryan 08:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Amen. -- Essjay · Talk 08:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Tutorial pruning

Unsurpisingly, the Tutorial tends to grow as people add tips, mention exceptions, and put in explanations. That's great except that a Tutorial needs to be short and clear so that people will actually read it. I think it will require periodic pruning to keep it accessible to newcomers.

I've just done a bit of trimming on the first couple pages. I intend to keep going through, but who knows if I'll get around to it. In the mean time, others may want to take a look at what I did, and continue the work if you feel motivated. The biggest project I have in mind is merging Related site links with External links. I don't think related site links are important enough to a beginner to need their own page. Isomorphic 04:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Encouraging creation of user pages

I noticed that many people paste a greeting that says something like "create your user page" and it links to Wikipedia:user page. I think it would a lot more useful to link it to their own user page. The link is very easy: [[User:{{PAGENAME}}|your user page]]. That work especially well if they have a red user page. Renata3 14:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Failure

I feel as those I've let the newcomers down by not further assisting them. I got this message on my talk page earlier today:

Just wanted to repeat my thanks for the welcome, I loved the fact that there was a welcome committee, it made me determined to try and create a number of good articles.... I envisaged investing significant time into the Wiki enterprise...

What you didn't warn me about was that the Helpers (I hoped for: Early Trainer, Coach and Mentor) roles are not as proactive as your welcome role, WHEREAS the Nihilists who jump around dropping "WIKIFY"? Templates with absolutely no explanation or helpfull comments are positively Hyperactive!! I experienced other such unhelpful to newbies templates being parachuted into my early admittedly poor quality attempts, again without any helpfull hints. Worse the Delete Template was quite a shock on my return from vacation. I found I had already gained 3 delete votes in my absence, so I spent 6 hours learning the expectations of good WIKI pages and words like POVing! and editing the page of De-Perimeterisation till it was half decent (or so I thought, I'd certainly got rid of the POVing!!) only to find this evening that it has been deleted. Your welcome notes remain the only communications in my wikipage....

So I thank you again for your welcome and politely and hopefully without too much rancour, I say goodbye to Wiki. I was ready, willing and "able" to learn! I mistakenly believed that "victimised" was a Bootcamp term for recruit. I hadn't realised that Wiki is turning into a massive Gaming Zone that involves Newbie "Victims" and Nazi "Admins".

I don't want to play.... Bye Adrius42 19:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of newcomers quitting because vets trashed their work. While maybe their contributions weren't notable and meet the CfD, they should at least be notified before a VfD is brought against their articles. They could pick up the pace and expand further so that it won't be deleted. It hurts to read something like this. Acetic Acid 22:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

This is an issue that's been discussed before. VfD is poison for newbies. There really ought to be a general policy of "talk to the author before VfDing". I have no problem with VfDing stuff by anons, but if someone has taken the trouble to make an account, we should take the trouble of talking to them before sending their work through the grinder. In some cases that would save us from unnecessary VfDs by identifying notable subjects that just didn't explain the notability well. In other cases, at least you've given an explanation, and hopefully encouragement and guidance on what topics are appropriate. Isomorphic 23:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean it this way, but I suspect it's worth reiterating that "talk to the author before VfDing" should be a general rule, not just for newbies. Yes, instituting this rule means getting an article on VFD would be a little harder but IMO nominating an article (or a template, or a category, or whatever) for deletion without contacting the originator is simply rude. Note that if this were customary, then when welcoming someone if you watch their talk page you'd likely notice if one of the newly welcomed user's efforts were nominated and could potentially help them out. I know we mean better, but I suspect many of the welcome messages people receive are perceived to be somewhat hollow. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean it to include everyone, but it's most important for newbies. Experienced contributors are less likely to take things personally, more likely to know how to defend their article, and less likely to leave the project if it goes badly. Isomorphic 06:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome program

Please provide feedback on a robot on Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Welcome_bot. The robot's aim is to assist the welcome comittee and help newcomers. Various degrees of automation can be achieved. 67.60.52.155 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

User button

I've created a babel-esque user button for the WC.

{{user WelCom}} is:

Sceptre 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! As a collector of these (I've tried to limit myself), I appreciate it. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome Sceptre 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for doing this. It's my favorite color, too. Acetic'^Acid 18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I was bored, so I had to find something to do :) Sceptre 19:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

WC? *Smirk* </school boy humor> --TimPope 10:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, its actually user WelCom. Weird name, why not user welcome?--Urthogie 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming users who haven't edited yet

I've noticed that several members of the Welcoming Committee have been welcoming users who haven't even edited anything yet. Is that something that we really want to do? I mean, if we're going to welcome everyone with the same standard template, we might as well have the text appear automatically on their talk pages. (As I understand it, that would be no problem at all for the developers.) But it seems as though the primary goal of the Welcoming Committee is to encourage unique, personal welcome messages, which are not possible if the newcomers haven't even done anything yet. If we just wait and let them edit first, we can give them tips, suggest WikiProjects, point them to policies or guidelines that they might be interested in, etc. Creating thousands of talk pages for users who will never contribute anything at all just seems like a waste of server space. Should there be a guideline that we hold off on the welcomes until the users show that they are actually interested in helping? --TantalumTelluride 05:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you're right! I like the idea --Neigel von Teighen 19:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. I don't much like template greetings, and don't see the point in welcoming anonymous editors (who may be dynamic IPs anyway) or new accounts that haven't contributed anything yet. But I may be in the minority. Isomorphic 07:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to wait for an edit by anons but definitely say hello to registered users who havent edited. Clearly they put in a small amount of effort in registering, so its safe to welcome them at this point (and I don't think dev's should do this, because its impersonal).--Urthogie 17:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I welcome users who haven't edited a lot. I feel it encourages new users to edit rather than just not bother and leave their account unused. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 11:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "haven't edited a lot" and "haven't edited". I don't know why this happens, but there are definitely people who create an account and never edit a single page with it. Isomorphic 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting (perhaps worrying) fact: this link: [1] shows the new user page with an offset of 150 000 users. At the time of writing this post, the page shows users created on the 28th of November, 2005. Therefore, from the 28th of November to the 9th of January, approximately a 150 000 new accounts have been created (which according to the stats page is 20% of all accounts). If you were to look at the contributions of 5 random accounts from that page, there are good odds at least 4 of them have not yet contributed. This issue was discussed on the anti-vandal irc channel a few days ago. - Akamad 08:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw in, from the last dump, about 28000 registered accounts made their first edit to a main namespace article in December. These accounts weren't necessarily created in December -- can't get that from the dumps -- but, the 4/5 non-contributors guess seems in the right ballpark. -- ForteTuba 15:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians

Could the welcomming message ask these new user to visit Wikipedia:Wikipedians so that we can add these users to categories of wikipedians by .... That would be a nice practice to figure out where is help in certain subject on WP. 132.204.207.108 16:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought about including that in my welcomes, but I'm not so sure we need to encourage brand new users to edit the Category namespace. I think a lot of miscategorizaion would be avoided if we let new users gain some experience with the Wikipedia system before encouraging them to edit categories (or templates, for that matter). Besides, Wikipedia:Wikipedians is a very confusing page that might scare away some new users. The page constantly contradicts itself by saying "List yourself here" and then saying "Don't list yourself; use a category instead." It might be a good idea, though, to encourage experienced users who haven't been categorized under Category:Wikipedians yet to categorize themselves. --TantalumTelluride 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It only made sense to me after a month of experience at wikipedia. Don't overload new users, should be a wikipedia rule, hehe--Urthogie 17:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

new templates for welcoming anons

See template talk:welcome-anon for details. TerraGreen 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, if I see any anons with lots of good edits I will use it! -Ravedave 20:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Over welcoming?

Hi everyone. I recently remembered I was a member of the Welcoming Commitee and I realized I haven't helped at all with this project, so I decided to welcome some new users. I was wondering is possible to over welcome? I know this might seem like a stupid question but is it ever possible to overdue myself when giving out welcomes? -- Moe ? 02:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Newbie Provided Resource for Others

I believe myself still too new (~ 1 month)to (safely) be of much assistance to newbies. However, FWIW, I have created a page at Wikipedia:Starter toolset to help dedicated newbies start off on the right foot. -->normxxx_talk--> email 18:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Roll call?

I noticed that we're getting a lot of members (can't really be a bad thing ^_^). Perhaps we could have a monthly roll call to maintain a shorter, but active list? Deckiller 22:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of members (like myself) get caught up in editing other things and neglect their WC duties for a while. However (like myself, again), we always get around to welcoming when we're in the mood. :o) Of course, you're right- as new members of Wikipedia continue to increase at a greater rate, Welcoming Committee members must remain diligent and active. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Present. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 07:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur that the monthly roll call is probably way over the top... maybe not so bad every six months or so. Like Jokermage, I generally welcome sporadically, save for discovering edits by someone who hasn't been greeted--those I make time to greet. The WP.AMA about drove me nuts with a new roll call every six weeks or so back when they were reorganizing.
  OTOH, maybe would be a good idea to elect a co-ordinator and systematize welcoming with a voluntary sign-up to welcome by date sort of cyclic thing. Have a sub-page with sign up dates and a template normally filled by a call to {{tl|void} or {{Null}} when inactive, and a little banner ad that pops out for a news tid-bit... 'Welcoming Committee needs greeters 5th, 13th, 14th 15th, 18th-22nd and 24-31st next month' Please take a date and fill one of these gaps WT:Wc/s or some such. Nothing about a schedule need make the duty onerous--it's a gentleman's agreement like helping out on the help desk. Say the coordinator and an assistant or two to handle messages, and issue a reminder the day before an about a week before that User:X has taken such and such a date. We'd need some sort of tracking user category 'Wikipedian contributing editor since Year-Month', which could be embedded in the welcome templates to give a list of those greeted, for comparison to the new user list, but should be NBD. // FrankB 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming like a quest :)

If you want, play with us Welcome look for WikiRPG. This is something like RPG and - I promise it will be very funny and very useful too :) Przykuta 13:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A few numbers about the positive effects of welcoming.

I thought the welcoming committee might be interested in this factoid about the possible effect of welcomes. This is based on the Jan 25 dump. (I'm doing analysis because I'm studying how a tool I'm writing that suggests pages to edit based on prior edit history affects people's behavior.)

• Take people on WP whose first edit was in Dec 2005, 28000-ish people.
• Group them based on whether they have the word "welcome" on their user talk page or not as of Jan 25.
• Look at how many edits each person made in the first four weeks after their first edit.
• Average edits per person in the "welcome" group: 26. In the "no welcome" group: 7.

There are plenty of possible confounds:

• Some people delete welcomes from their talk page. To be more accurate I should look at page history.
• Not all welcomes are "welcome"; some are "you're welcome". But, probably not many.
• Welcomes are often reserved for "good" contributors, while people who make copyvios, create odd articles, etc., often get slapped down instead of welcomed. So there's some bias toward good editors in who gets welcomed.
• Edit counting is a poor proxy for value/quality.
• The edit counting tool filters non-main namespace edits and some user accounts (notably those that look like ips and contain "bot" in the name).
• I could have made mistakes.

Still, it suggests that welcomes are pretty powerful, and I thought I should share.

-- ForteTuba 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the data. :o) It's a tad hard to interpret, though, since there are so many confounding variables. Also, I do a lot of welcoming of anon-ip users, inviting them to get a user account. So, in a way, I'd actually like it if those users never edited again under their IP, but rather took up my offer and did the rest of their editing under a user name. Either way, it seems like we're doing a good job (or at least picking good editors to welcome). P.S.- Great user name! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

{{welcomeroad}}

Created as a variant of {{welcome}}, but it has links to the highways and U.S. Roads wikiproject. Use for users who are editing road pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Getting tired?

Getting tired of sending grettings to every newbies? An enhancement request has been made to bugzilla (see bugzilla:3456). This request mediawiki to add new system message which can be filled out with the welcome template. The idea is to make mediawiki automatically send welcome message to user after being created. Another alternative is to disable the automatic redirection of welcome page so that welcome message can be put in Mediawiki:welcomecreation and people can have the sufficient time to read it since the redirection is off. borgx ^(talk) 03:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that part of the welcoming is that is gives them someone to ask questions of. -Ravedave 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, humans can welcome people to a community of humans much better, and can provide links to pages that the editor might be interested in. A similar discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Archive_12#Welcome_bot. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Worst. Idea. Ever. Isomorphic 08:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

welcome on user pages?

I have gone to welcome a few users who I have seen making new edits on some of the pages on my watchlist. I have seen one or two that have welcome messages left on their user pages. I just wanted to clarify: generally welcome messages go on people's talk pages, not the user pages, correct? Thanks, I'm new to this welcoming thing. Jessamyn (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, welcome messages should go on user talk pages so that the recipient will get one of those scary little orange bars at the top of his or her screen. --TantalumTelluride 05:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As a message, yes, it goes to the talk page. Keep in mind that they may want to personalize their user page. Michael 08:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Purpose & Procedure

I just joined the welcoming commitee, and have some questions about the its purpose.

• If the purpose of the committee is welcoming the maximum amount of users, isn't that a waste of time? Wouldn't it be simpler to have the default new user talk page include a welcome message? I know this is impersonal, but so is a welcome for no specific reason.
• Similarly, do we welcome new users simply because they are new users? This is what is suggested by many of the responses here. If so, how is this different from a bot?
• Do we welcome vandals?
• Do we welcome users with no edits?

I personally welcome only users who make edits to articles I am watching, since then I can make a comment thanking them for their contribution. I would suggest that this is better than welcoming users en masse, although it may lead to some users with no welcome message on their userpage.

I would like to add the answers to these questions (and others on this talk page) to the project page. TheJabberwock 22:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never liked template greetings, and I have only rarely welcomed a user without looking through their edits and thanking them for what they've done. But that's just me. Isomorphic 07:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's really up to the individual who/when they welcome. However, my personal preferences on these questions are:

• • I agree; welcoming the max number of users isn't the point, it's welcoming them personally into a community.
  • We welcome them because we want them to stay, not just because they are new.
  • The most "welcome" vandals get from me is {{test}}. That is polite enough, and provides a link to the welcome page. If they then become legimate editors, they can get a legitimate welcome.
  • I personally never welcome users with no edits- what are the odds that they use the account, and would therefore get the message?

As far as going out and looking for users to welcome (rather than just waiting for them on your watchlist), I sometimes go to recent changes, look for editors with red-linked talk pages, and find the ones that have a good amount of edits (depending on the timing, etc., usually 5-10 or more). I think the bottom line for me is to try to invite good editors to stay and enjoy the community. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 08:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to think that all articles are being watched by somebody, and that thus any newbie who made a good edit would get a welcome. But in practice, I guess there is a need for a separate commitee. Anyway, thanks for your responses. TheJabberwock 03:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiWelcome Lei

I would like to introduce to you the WikiWelcome Lei. The WikiWelcome Lei is to be presented as a welcoming gift for new user's arrival to Wikipedia. Like the WikiThanks it is not an award. The WikiWelcome Lei is meant to be given in conjuction with a welcome message. Please let me know what you think. I think it adds a more personal and fun touch to welcome messages. Also, feel free to upload new versions of the lei that are of a clearer resolution quality. Thanks. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 02:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If we get a thousand new users a day, each with the lei on their talk pages, that would severely slow the servers in at most a month. Maybe not a good idea for everyone to do. Jfingers88 05:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the new user log, and it looks like there were about 1000 users created in 4 hours. I'd be very careful with the lei. Jfingers88 05:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a new idea reagarding the lei. Instead of sending it with the welcome message I will simply put a link to it but "present it in a similar fashion here. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this new idea. It both provides a welcoming touch and keeps it in only one place. Good job. I might consider adding it to my welcome messages. Jfingers88 23:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If this becomes popular, I will consider moving it to its own page. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 00:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Javascript!

If anyone is interested, here is a custom javascript to add a "welcome" tab to the edit page of a user talk which has no text in it already (i.e. a new user).

// <nowiki> window.onload = Main; function Main() { addactions(); } function addactions() { addwelcome(); } function addwelcome() { if(!document.editform) return; var txt = document.editform.wpTextbox1; var url = window.location; if(txt.value.length == 0) { if (url.search.indexOf("User_talk:") != -1) { var tabs = document.getElementById('p-cactions').getElementsByTagName('ul')[0]; if(document.title.indexOf("Editing") == 0) addlilink(tabs, 'javascript:welcome()', 'welcome', 'ca-welcome'); } } } function welcome() { document.editform.wpSummary.value = 'Welcome!'; document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = false; document.editform.wpWatchthis.checked = false; var txt = document.editform.wpTextbox1; if(txt.value.length > 0) txt.value += '\n'; txt.value += '{{subst:welcome}}--~~~~'; document.editform.wpSave.focus(); } function addlilink(tabs, url, name, id) { var na = document.createElement('a'); na.href = url; na.id = id; na.appendChild(document.createTextNode(name)); var li = document.createElement('li'); li.appendChild(na); tabs.appendChild(li); return li; } // </nowiki>

Feel free to use it if you're interested! Put it in your Special:Mypage/monobook.js, or whichever skin you use. (Written by Uncyclopedia:User:Splaka and Uncyclopedia:User:Villahj Ideeut) --Keitei (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't get it to work for some reason. Do you know why? I did put it in the right js, in case you were wondering. Where would the "tab" be, at the top with the edit tab? Jfingers88 16:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot of the tab It's on the editing page. Click this link: User_talk:Randomuser - it should be next to the tabs on the top at the far right. --Keitei (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh also, you don't need the first code and nowiki tabs. --Keitei (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I still can't seem to get it to work. I don't know why. Care to check it out? User:Jfingers88/monobook.js Jfingers88 01:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can use this code:

// <nowiki> window.onload = Main; function Main() { addlinks(); } function addlilink(tabs, url, name, id) { var na = document.createElement('a'); na.href = url; na.id = id; na.appendChild(document.createTextNode(name)); var li = document.createElement('li'); li.appendChild(na); tabs.appendChild(li); return li; } } function addlinks() { var tabs = document.getElementById('p-cactions').getElementsByTagName('ul')[0]; if(document.title.indexOf("Editing User talk:") == 0) { addlilink(tabs, 'javascript:welcome()', 'welcome', ''); } } function welcome() { var txt = document.editform.wpTextbox1; if (txt.value.length > 0) txt.value += '\n'; var article = prompt("article?"); txt.value += '{{subst:' + 'welcome}}~~' + '~~'; document.editform.wpSummary.value = 'welcome'; document.editform.wpWatchthis.checked = false; } } // </nowiki>

Put this into Special:Mypage/monobook.js. See User:Iamthejabberwock/monobook.js for details. TheJabberwock 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Howdy, professional welcomers! I'd like the assistance of an experienced Wikipedian in opening contact with User:Edemerell. I stumbled across this user via College of Visual Arts, and if you check the history of that article, you might start to get an idea why this is sticky. It gets worse; the lead (not written by User:Edemerell) is a copyvio from the college website. I'd like to start talking to this guy before slamming the page with a copyvio warning; depending on what he can do with respect to the college's copyrighted material, we may be able to get it under a free license. The stuation is tricky enough that I don't want to handle it all by myself. Anyway, I've watchlisted both the article and his user page; if someone wants to leave me a message on my talk page, that would be excellent. Many thanks in advance, --CComMack 12:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page Jessamyn (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Iamthejabberwock/Welcome

A template that I made to address the problem of the impersonal quality of {{welcome}} and its variants. Includes a custom thank you and topic-specific portal recommendation, and works for both users and anonymous editors. Feel free to use it yourself. TheJabberwock 03:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the part that says, "My name is Dan. AKA The Jabberwock". You need to put an option like "My name is [[User:{{{yourusername}}}|{{{yourusername}}}]]", or else everybody who uses it will have "TheJaberwock" in their welcome. The only way for people to remove that is if they copy it to their userspace, but some people don't want to do that.--GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 02:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. TheJabberw?ck 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Joining the WC

I'm a newbie myself with a whopping one month of wikixsperience and have been doing welcomes (when I can) to other newbies. I'd like to ask WC members if they'd think I'd be a positive contribution to the WC. I try to have a daily average of about five users per day, being selective of those who seem to be interested in actual editing and contributing, though I've accidentally welcomed those who end up being vandals before. If you'd like, peek at User:Kylu/welcome for my personal modification to {{welcomeg}}. I'm asking here instead of RfC or other pages since I'd like a slightly more limited set of opinions. :)

~Kylu (u|t) 04:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the bit where being a member of the Welcoming Committee isn't a big deal. ;-) It's not a very organized organization. You sound like you're doing good work, so go right ahead and list yourself as a member if you want to. Isomorphic 03:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means, join up. Except for RfAs, I don't think Wikipedia ever requires formalities. Rama's Arrow 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I always consider it important to welcome everyone. In some idealistic way, maybe it helps to deter/reform potential vandals. Rama's Arrow 03:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless the last name ends in "on wheels"? :D

Anyway, I'll go ahead and add myself, thanks for the opinions! ~Kylu (u|t) 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome template

I recently created my own welcome template (User:Evan Robidoux/Welcome) and I would like to know if I should add things, remove things or change things before I start using it. Thanks! --Evan Robidoux 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest using <includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly> before the PAGENAME. Also, depending on how you plan to welcome people, you may wish to include a {{{article}}} variable to reference which article you saw them edit. And you may wish to add a "welcomer" (see above) to your monobook.js. TheJabberw?ck 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

on the Commons

Cross pollination: I am trying to start a small, informal Newbie Checker group on the Commons, pretty close to a welcoming committee. ;) We have a WelcomeBot in the form of User:Orgullobot. It's useful because it identifies the actually active newbies, as opposed to just everyone who signed up with an account. For me, the motivation is more in making sure they're following licensing requirements than making them feel welcome, because the earlier we catch 'em the better. :) Thought folks here might be interested though. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Uneasy feeling

On May 13, I welcomed a new user (Garret21) who created an article (Garret Meyers) which was later deleted. Before it was deleted, I found that article and saw a speedy deletion tag. After seeing it, I went to his talk page and asked him if the page was meant to be a user page instead of an article, but after leaving the message, I felt that it might be an intimidating message and asked HighwayCello and Srikeit what I should do. They told me to explain the concept of user pages to the user. I got worried about this because I felt the new user would feel intimidated at this, too. So I decided to clear up the situation by saying "never mind." Of course, he might not have liked the idea of his page getting deleted. And today, I overcame my fear of this and explained the concept. But I feel like it is too late now because he hasn't edited ever since then and I think that he may have been driven away from Wikipedia. This has been giving me a lot of stress and I fear that I may have to give up on ever becoming an admin, which is upseting me because I have been working hard to reach this goal since late February. Please help me.

--Evan Robidoux 02:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. He was probably just a one time vandal who didn't know anything about wikipedia and decided to write an article about himself. And for all we know he could have gone and created another account by now. It sure sounds like you have a lot of wikistress. You should consider taking a wikibreak or joining Esperanza. -- ßottesi?i ^(talk) 03:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

is someone interested in that?

User:Emijrp/Welcome! is a list of user that have edited in WP but they haven't been welcome. What is it a good limit? 5 or more edits? 10? --Emijrp 10:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say don't waste time mechanically welcoming. Far better to look at articles on your watchlist for real helpful edits, and give a thoughtful and personalized welcome to those editors. ????c??? 16:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but there are editors that find newcomers in the new users log. This list gives 100% users with edits. --Emijrp 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, I know, but if that's how you find them, why not have a machine do it? It would save effort. Some of those edits may be fluff or vandalism. If you must mechanically welcome, at least take the time to look through their contributions or userpage (if they have one) and say something personalized. ????c??? 04:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you really wanted to, you could find a user, take a look at his edits, and then base a personalized welcome off of that. Although I still prefer to find them by accident. My welcome template, an amalgam of several others, has a personal message space which I usually fill with "I noticed your edits on whatever, and I think this. Furthermore, if you'd like to find like-minded Wikipedians, you might consider looking here." - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the personal touch is important here. It shows that someone thought that they're doing something right and cares enough to want them to stay. An automated welcome would reduce the impact of the message (and, if we wanted to automate it, why not just put the information on the "create account" page?). JYolkowski // talk 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how this works.

I just signed myself on the Welcoming Committee. The thing is that I'm really confused how I find out who is a newcomer and who isn't. Is each Committee member assigned someone once they create their account? Or am I actually supposed to search for new users? I would appreciate any help I can receive. --walkingencyclopedia 17:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Basically most committee members (as is my understanding) greet new users that they run into while editing other stuff. Finding out who is a newcomer is, in my experience, best acomplished by looking at their talk page: users with empty talk pages are normally new. You can also actively look for new users through the contributions from new users. Or check out some of the other links at the bottom of the project page, everyone has their own method of finding new users. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redlinks in signatures are a good sign that someone is new to Wikipedia. Also, new users tend to (but not always!) make more policy and guideline mistakes than seasoned users. Sometimes you can tell just by getting a feel for how the user speaks or edits. And sometimes you go to leave a comment to someone and notice their talk page is blank! In any case, you can reaffirm the fact that a user is new by checking his/her contributions. - CheNuevara 09:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• That there is a newcomers list needs mentioned here. Does anyone know it off the top of their head? I thought I'd a link to it but couldn't find it just now. this is nearly (maybe better!) as good though--and the red talks stand right out. Is it just me, or should a lot of this page be split off an archived. // FrankB 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

establish advice page for offline users

If one day there is a page established about how offline users can best contribute to wikipedia without blowing their phone bill, please notify me at jidanni at jidanni.org. Offline users can't stay on line experimenting, and would rather use batch modes like WWWOFFLE to upload finished works. Also some pages have tons of "In other languages" links... wish I could trim most via Preferences. --User:Jidanni 2006-07-24

I like this idea. - CheNuevara 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeking participants on Requests for feedback

Several months ago, I created Requests for feedback, an initiative for new editors to seek feedback on new articles they write (or major edits they make to existing articles). This feedback will help them understand their strengths and weaknesses as an editor - for example, they may be excellent with screenshots and NPOV, but weak in referencing and linking. Hopefully they will use the feedback they receive to improve their editing skills and the articles they make.

I created RFF after trying to get feedback on two articles I wrote, Google Groups and Homerun (film), but finding established processes such as Peer Review and Requests for Expansion not meeting my needs. Traffic is growing and we currently receive a couple of requests for feedback from new editors daily. It seems my idea is popular among newcomers, and I intend to develop it into an established Wikipedia process.

Currently, there are only 4 Wikipedians who regularly respond to requests for feedback posted on RFF: Hildanknight, Tangotango, Saxifrage and Imoeng. We will need more regular participants in this project; hopefully experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with Wikipedia process and friendly towards newcomers.

Many members of the Welcoming Committee are likely to be "experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with Wikipedia process and friendly to newcomers". Therefore, I am posting here asking such Wikipedians to check out RFF, and, should they be interested, watch the RFF page and regularly respond to requests for feedback posted there.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Request to welcome a new user

Hi there. I think the actions of existing users contributing to the Brighton article have been misunderstood by the new user User:Brightonkid and the whole thing has got off to the wrong foot. (I think he/she has also been editing through IP addresses as well.) In fact his/her edits have quickly become involved in a mediation. I'd be really grateful if someone could welcome Brightonkid to Wikipedia to show the world of Wikipedia means no harm and we're all quite friendly. I don't want to welcome him/her myself as my gesture might be misunderstood. Thanks! --Seaweed 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

I've found Wikipedia to be pretty hostile to new editors (at least that's been my experience). I received no welcome on my talk page and was bitten quite nastily (by editors and admins who should have known better) for small mistakes. I've found that much of Wikipedia adheres to "mob rule" and censorship by intimidation is not uncommon. This last bit led me to prohibit the use of Wikipedia as a reference in my (graduate) students' papers and assignments and to encourage other educators to do the same. This is potentially a viable project but as long as wikigangs prowl the pages, attacking editors who try to maintain POV, the prospects for an unbiased and up-to-date presentation of information are slim. I have met some nice, friendly and helpful people on Wikipedia, but they have been a small minority. I guess my point is that if this committee is welcoming only users who make the type of edits the individual members of the committee like (seems the case from reading this page), then the members of this committee are using the funtioning of this committee, not to actually welcome people, but to encourage particular editors and discourage others. Instead, it might be a good idea to welcome all editors in order to help everyone learn the wikiway :) DrL 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. So would you be in favor of a welcome bot? ????c??? 03:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am in favor of all editors being welcomed to Wikipedia, not just a subgroup selected somewhat randomly by individual members of the WC (based at least in part on whether or not they liked the newbie's edits). If that takes a welcome bot, well, okay. WC members can then go in and follow up, introducing themselves and seeing how newbies are doing, at their leisure. Not everyone will get this personal follow-up, but at least everyone gets some kind of a basic welcome and direction to newbie resources. DrL 13:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess, although I don't remember, is that when you create a username you are given some of the relevant links. This, though, is not a real welcome, and neither would a bot message. A vandal, for example, would get the welcome message. I would say introduce the policies automatically, but leave the welcoming to the real poeople. ????c??? 22:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Hey, I just joined the Welcoming Committee and was wondering if there was a Userbox to put on my Userpage. I know that I've seen one, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Thanks!

Caesar 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it's right above at {{user WelCom}}. Jfingers88 19:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Or a nice graphical version: {{User wikipedia/Welcoming Committee 2}}. ????c??? 00:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible Welcoming committee Award!

Hi fellow members, just to let you know I have proposed an award for the welcoming committee's members who tirelessly welcome new users with lots of WikiLove. You can find my proposal here. I welcome you to vote on the idea on the proposal page, and possibly even create a nice design for it. Thanks! Jam01 07:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming anons

I request all WC members who are also RC patrollers, to make a special effort to welcome all anon users who are seen helping remove vandalism. Thanks, Rama's arrow 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, newcomers - merged with introduction - templates need updating

The Welcome page has been merged into the Introduction for a few weeks now. If someone familiar with the welcome templates could update them all to remove/replace that link, though would be great :) Thanks. --Quiddity 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome & prompt a new user

I'm not a member of the welcoming committee, but when I see someone edit a page on my watchlist I generally give them a welcome on their talk page (without using any templates or anything). Today's example is User:Brafield who I think needs some help understanding the NPOV & encyclopedic nature of wikipedia - how do I request someone to add appropriate guidelines etc to their talk page? Is there a function to do this?-- Rod ^talk 12:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally, I just put "Please try to write in the neutral point of view and in the tone of an encylopedia" or something. But there also templates, such as {{NPOV0}} and others at warning templates. Cbrown1023 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

some welcome templates are messed up

I just tried welcoming someone, using the template I found: {{subst:welcome-anon-from|your_username}}

It's completely broken. Go try using it in the sandbox or something. The part that is supposed to link back to your talk page is all wrong, it spits out ugly code that the reader sees. And it doesn't seem to "subst" at all. Here's what it actually leaves behind (if you go back and hit edit):

{{Welcomeanon-meta|[[{{ns:3}}:your_username|my Talk page]]}}

And that has a weird edit link in the results, so that the new user's talk page now has an edit link that appears to actually edit the original template itself! Big trouble, if I'm understanding this correctly. -- Coelacan | talk 06:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The talk page at Template_talk:Welcome-anon seems to have both of these complaints already, worded a little differently; those people might make more sense than I do. I'd have a go at fixing it but templates way are beyond me. -- Coelacan | talk 06:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I just tried it on the Wikipedia:Sandbox sandbox and it appears to work OK. Is it going now? Yuser31415 ^{reply!|contribs} 02:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just took it to the sandbox and it's doing exactly what I described above. I was fussing and exaggerating when I said "completely broken". Hyperbole is my strong suit. But go use it and look closely at the results. When you get down to the part where your talk page link is supposed to show up, look at the ugly code barf there. And then click on the section edit link and see where it takes you. I checked your sandbox edit and it looks like you did get the result I got, but you have to look closely. -- Coelacan | talk 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is a very simple problem: Welcomeanon-meta allows you to put a variable called "1", which is the username ({{Welcomeanon-meta|1}}). Welcome-anon-from has also the same syntax and manages its own variable "1" for username and then redirects to Welcomeanon-meta... Where's the problem? The redirection used in the Welcome-anon-from code: {{Welcomeanon-meta|[[User_talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]}} ({{{1}}} means that variable 1 must be placed there) (before, it said {{ns:3}} instead of User_talk, but it's the same). What happens here? Let's say I use the template this way {{Welcome-anon-from|Imaglang}}, then, as variable 1 = Imaglang, so the redirect will be {{Welcomeanon-meta|[[User_talk:Imaglang|my talk page]]}}. Now we see the problem: Welcomeanon-meta will treat 1 as the whole [[User_talk:Imaglang|my talk page]] thing, so, where the username was to be placed, it will appear the whole link... Simple. The solution would be to change the redirect in Welcome-anon-from to {{Welcomeanon-meta|1}}, but it would result in having two indentically working templates... It would be better to delete Welcome-anon-from. --Neigel von Teighen 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. Since there's action on this talk page today, I thought I'd point out that this problem is still outstanding. -- coelacan talk -- 04:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Asher Heimermann (talk · contribs)

I'm concerned that this user is using the WC for disruptive purposes. He continues to flood new user pages with a welcome message without discrimination (please see his talk page and contribs). He's welcomed users that don't exist, blatant vandals, and many, many users that have not even contributed to WP yet. He seems to just be welcoming based on the new user creation log. Gzkn 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. Users have to exist to show up in the new user creatoin log. I used to do that, but now I just welcome them when I see a blank talk link in the recent changes. What's the problem? How is that disruptive? Cbrown1023 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

He is definately disruptive and not a very good editor, but that does not have anything to do with the Welcoming Committee. I think a better place for this is ANI. Cbrown1023 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that's too bad - I used to do that (when my edit count was under 1000, it's over 5000+ now) but soon stopped when I found out I was welcoming vandals sometimes. Currently, I only welcome users who've had a blank talk page and make good edits to articles. However, I think it's fine, but Asher Heimermann needs to be a bit more careful about who he/she welcomes. As a vandal fighter myself, I know that no amount of welcome messages will stop a determined vandal from vandalizing, but it does help new users who are here for good purposes. More prudence, I think would be good. (I'm just commenting on his/her practice of welcoming, not on any other edits he/she may have done). -- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Prudence - I think Asher Heimermann needs to slow down a bit. This diff isn't good, especially considering that the user was a good user and had even reverted vandalism. I think the user is too hasty. -- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming users from Special:Log/newusers

This is what I do, but is this actually what we're supposed to do? I just welcome 10-20 users per day, from this page, regardless of whether they've made edits or not. Is this OK :? Yuser31415^@? 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the practice is well meaning, but the problem is often many of the welcomed accounts are used only for vandalism. I used to do that myself, until I found so many were being used to vandalize. Currently, I welcome if I see a user's redlink in the edit history of an article, and if that user's edit was a good one. ?- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 04:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see ... But shouldn't we welcome vandals as well? I mean, if we welcome them, they might get off to a good start instead of a bad vandalising one ... Yuser31415^@? 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly as well, but my conclusion after using the new user log for a while is that a Welcome message usually doesn't deter a vandal from vandalizing. Partly, because of the common misconception that welcome messages or bot-posted. Usually, vandalism account are created because the user wishes to circumvent a semi-protection policy, and the user already knows what he/she wants to do. (see the history of Atlantic Records for an example). My hope is that it will help, but I'm not sure if it does. -- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

User needs help

User:Mrn3 needs some gentle help in understanding policies. He's created a page called Wheelchair Organizations, which I feel is more like a yellow pages than an encyclopedia article. Could someone more proficient than me help him? See his contributions. Thanks, Yuser31415^@? 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

unhappy user

well ive seen how people have been welcomed now that ive had some time to explore and figure out how to use wikipedia. but i am very unhappy theat i didnt get welcomed. i wanted to join to fight vandalism on wiki because i had some bad vandalism on some of the things i was researching so i joined and assumed that i would be welcomed and somone would tell me how and what to do but even to this day i have gotten no messages and have had to figure it out for myself. sincerly, an unhappy user, flink the blind hemophiliac 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can help. It's not as easy as it looks. On any given day, there might be a couple or more people rigorously greeting new users. They are faced with a veritable flood of new accounts being created each day. Many thousands of these accounts are extras - that is, they are created by veterans for various purposes (some valid, some not). But it is almost impossible to tell these accounts from new user accounts. So, the greeters are stuck with welcoming them all! There are tools to assist with this task, such as AutoWikiBrowser, but even with that it is almost impossible to reach everyone. We welcome all the help we can get. The Transhumanist 22:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot List

I run HagermanBot, which is a bot for signing unsigned comments left on talk pages. Recently, the bot has begun leaving a {{tilde}} template on the user's talk page if they leave 3 or more unsigned comments in a 24 hour period. NoSeptember has expressed some concern about leaving the template on a user's talk page who hasn't been properly welcomed. How would everyone feel about a bot generated list that would show all users who have left 3 or more unsigned comments and haven't been welcomed? The idea would be that editors could check the list regularly and then leave a welcome message as well as a blurb on how to sign comments on talk pages. Anyone care to offer some feedback? Thanks! Hagerman^(talk) 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this idea. Yuser31415 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This page was unilaterally transformed

Xpost from

User_talk:Anthony_cfc#Upsetting_edits

Hi, you recently made a major content change and essentially hijacked WP:WC/Wikipedia:Welcoming Committee from a perfectly good, and much more useful version , which I drop essentially all the time when welcoming newcomers. In point of fact, until the people running HELP (or working on welcome templates) get their head out of their rear, this was one of the few places a newbie could find a link to Wikipedia:Newcomers_help_page. They insist on hiding it on the main help, and I'm disappointed in the extremis that your bright version hasn't got it either.
  That namecase variant version was specifically tailored to give newbies help links, and a navigation link to WP:Welcoming committee and it's members. It also linked to admins and iirc, some other good stuff that would be helpful to someone in this sad state. I cannot see that this gaudy version is anything but the variant (WP:Wc). I hate reverts, but overwriting a page without discussing it has me going for one here. Sorry. I edited it just a few short days ago, so courtesy would have been to at least ask me, or let me know it was being discussed for major change somewhere. Best regards // FrankB 07:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This editor (User:Anthony_cfc) wants discussion and permission to fancy up that page again, much like his user and user talk pages, based on what I reverted. Please join us on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming Committee (note the BIG 'C') as I think style and tradition is a problem on that. // FrankB 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolved. See Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

COI/Autobio welcome

Request for a new welcome template, for obvious cases of people writing about themselves/their companies. Would need to link to WP:COI and maybe WP:AUTO. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Four posts today Watchlister watchers!

Three new section posts made up above

1. Quiddity's post, immediate section above...
2. 04:38, 9 February 2007 Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee/Archive_2#I have no idea how this works. - (Here's a link to find red talks and users) FrankB
3. 04:22, 9 February 2007 Fabartus Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee/Archive_2#Roll call? - (How about a loose schedule to greet and cover the list of newbies systematically.)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Welcoming_committee#A_few_numbers_about_the_positive_effects_of_welcoming. Section 25 is also worth a second look, albeit a year old now.

Please take a moment to look those over, and the new section below I have adding this above since I forgot to sign like a newbie! <g> // FrankB 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggest we discuss housekeeping this page

The time spread and timeline is all over the map as one reads down top to bottom as I have just done, not having done so for a long while. Perhaps we need a 'timeless FAQ' sub-page and archive the rest that's stale. Anybody got some spare time?
  Or maybe a 'Top section' with 'Common timeless concerns and answers', and a Jump-to link down to current non-stale business. More, I think the Werdnabot with a three to six month time test would do the job well, insofar as keeping stale stuff off the page without additional man-power. The <!--werdnabot-noarchive---> directive would preserve and skip those sections with good information in that hypothetical top section, and a FAQ page would require human judgement to add 'Good things' in any event, if that is the groups leaning. Can we have some discussion? // FrankB 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. Feel free to jump in and help. If there's anything I change or add which you don't like, please feel free to modify it in any way you see fit. I welcome all cooperation and feedback, and will do my best to adapt to all input in a positive constructive way. Let's build upon each other's contributions. I look forward to working with everyone on the Welcoming committee. The Transhumanist 18:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. The Transhumanist 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The following comment seems really out of place on the project page

This just seems to detract from the mission statement. Sure, it helps newcomers, but it should really be on a help page or tip page or something:

This is as good a place as any to note that Wikipedia has different 'Name Spaces', or equivalently, database categorized spaces. 'Wikipedia' prefixed spaces are where we administer or talk about administering Wikipedia itself. There are other spaces, see your preferences tab, and look at how you can define 'Searching' in the list by checking some of these or unchecking some. Special pages also allow you to select looking at just one set among the many you may find yourself working and posting to someday.

A similar tip can be found at Wikipedia:Tips. The Transhumanist 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't be sure, but a little tickle says that was me back one day. Maybe just link to wikipedia tips? I wish I'd had an IN to those two years back, if they existed! Kudos on the cleanup! // FrankB 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WelcomeBot?

Would there be any objection to my creating a bot to help fill in the gaps in our greetings efforts to contact new users? It wouldn't replace personalized greetings, but would simply say hi and provide a link to the Welcoming Committee's welcome page. And while it wouldn't do any harm when included on users' talk pages which also received a personalized welcome, it would definitely help alleviate the lack of a welcome for those users who our personal greeters missed. The message could read something like this:

Welcome

Hello (username), and Welcome to Wikipedia.

We hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Yours truly, The Welcoming Committee

Or, if it isn't obvious enough that there's a link included there...

Hello (username), and Welcome to Wikipedia.

To get started, click on the green welcome. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Transhumanist (talk o contribs) 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

We hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Yours truly, The Welcoming Committee

Bot's design and operating procedure

The bot would check the log for new accounts created, and would leave a message on each one's talk page, creating a talk page if necessary. The bot could also check for inappropriate user names (such as comparing names to Lupin's bad word list), and report (or even block) inappropriate names.

Alternatively, the bot could be designed to only contact new users who have contributed at least one edit to Wikipedia. That way, the bot won't interfere with Wikipedia's reclaiming of abandonned unused user accounts.

Thoughts, suggestons, comments?

If there is general agreement that this would help the Welcoming committee achieve its goal of helping new users, I would like to design and submit a bot for approval to the bot department. I've already begun manual testing of the concept, and have received no complaints for the approximately 500 welcome messages sent out so far.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 16:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it sounds a great idea; perhaps we could have a 100 second delay between the execution of the "Create Account" command and the bot's "Post Welcome" command, to avoid the robot both taking priority over personalised greetings which are always preferred, and also edit conflicts with WC members. I also think we need a more extensive welcome message: what's the point of the bot filling the gaps that WC members missed with a tiny message?

Awaiting the community's response,
Anthonycfc ^{[T o C]} 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. See #Getting tired? above, and specifically the discussion it links to: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 12#Welcome bot. --Quiddity 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and the input. Most of the problems presented in the threads you mentioned are easy to solve. The unused account problem is solved by not creating talk pages. The lack of a greeter's signature could be solved by having a group of WC members sign up for a run in which their usernames would be randomly signed by the bot for them. If having a bot sign sigs isn't acceptable, then rather than using sigs, the message could present the chosen member (for each recipient) as having volunteered to assist. Though I think the proxy idea is a pretty good one. We could call it ProxyBot. As for the objection to WC/greetings in general (in favor of static help pages), well, that seemed to be the minority position. I'm sure there's an innovative/creative way to solve any procedural problems or human touch issues that arise. Even having the bot's name in pages' edit history isn't a big problem -- that could be ameliorated by placing each volunteer in the edit summary. Such as "Quiddity has volunteered to assist you." The important thing is to get contact names out to the newcomers. In that sense, the bot would be helping WC members to reach out. But right now we're just bouncing ideas around to see if a proposal worth being presented can be developed. Can you guys think of any ways to improve this concept? The Transhumanist 01:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Bots are mindless; a welcome should mean something. -Audacity 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That gives me some more thoughts... The bot could be used to send the messages of WC members. Each member would provide a message or blurb, which could either be the whole message or added on to a boilerplate one. We have lots of boilerplate messages to choose from, and those could be accessed by the bot to do its job. The Transhumanist 01:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite all the fanciness, I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of welcoming users by bot. It's completely impersonal, just as welcoming new users straight from the new user list is. I never welcome someone who I haven't seen attempt to make a useful edit, and I always mention to the user, at a bare minimum, where I saw them editing, and suggest a Portal or Project that they might be interested in.

Which leaves most users ungreeted. But I agree that the personal touch is best. The Transhumanist 03:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

After experimenting (User:Testusername), it seems that users are already presented with a message similar to this one after creating an account:

Login successful
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Welcome, Testusername!
Your account has been created. Don't forget to change your Wikipedia preferences.

Perhaps a better idea would be to implement some of the links from the welcome templates into this message. -Audacity 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How easy would that be to do? --TT 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I would go on one of the IRC channels to find out. -Audacity 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Bot requests#Greeting Bot. --Quiddity 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like this type of thing has been proposed to the bot dept. a lot in the past, and that there's a history of rejection. So I guess it's back to the old fashioned approach. --TT 03:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts -- other business, so adding here to thread)

It is a simple matter of changing the system messages (link available through Special:Specialpages) which requires sysop access. Anthonycfc ^{[T o C]} 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

End around-a compromise scheme

I'm pretty strongly with The Transhumanist on this... BOT greetings are too impersonal. Someone will come along eventually, at random and be savvy enough to drop a greeting, BUT... No reason to not work smarter and use a BOT to organize THAT part.

So let's step outside the box a bit -- a once a day BOT run or maybe every six hours at most, have the BOT instead build a page and tabulate new users using one of the user templates (contribs--talk-user pages at least), and have that run down listed on a daily page that gets recylced modulo 31-- and a little sooner for shorter months. (Assumption--with better organization, any team can greet all those greetable in one month's joint efforts.) Have an small discrete 2-3 line alert banner template on our talks posting number of ungreeted users in the month, the last two weeks, and each of the last seven days. See the AMA template on my talk for one that uses this sort of technique.

where the ####'s are all links to the daily page needing the action/attention. I'm personally not concerned whether someone gets welcomed in their first day or even three, but I figure inside a week, would be reasonable. My recollection is when I went from edits as an anom, to active article expansions as a registered user, it took about three days or so before I was greeted, and another day or two for a second greeting.

My reason for coming here today is related... with all those welcome templates, there is "not a one" geared to Belated Welcome and message, which I guess I'd apply after a few months or down to two weeks depending on contribs patterns to anyone that skipped under the radar, so to speak. ({{Welcome5}} and {{Welcomecookie}} are so much alike my head was spinning!) Contribs peeking can let each of us see if someone has overlapping interests, and anyone that peeks first, might add a phrase like 'editing science', 'edit computer games'... etc. [([[More on belated greetings here)]

In addition to that, I'd like to see us target at least two greeters per newbie... so we sign off when we 'greet one', and someone adds their sig to ours on the second occasion. Two editors greeeting the same user a 'second' time may occur once in a while, but all to the good (My condolences on the edit conflict, but I have faith you'll survive the stress, oh great number two greeter! <g>). If the newcomers daily page is arbitrarily sectioned by scores, say, or tens... we can all edit our comments and sign without any (troublesome) edit conflicts, much as many people can be editing sections on TFD, CFD, etc. (no, I won't claim none -- just no troublesome one's! <g>)

That all assumes we can get a BOT at all, but for a once a day run, I consider that far, far more likely than constant polling--to use a computer term. The biggest flaw in the big lists is that they are so damn big. But by having some kind of a 'sign off', cross off, and trying to find people of common bent may well interest more people into helping, and then their is the vandalism aid we can give.
  Looking at 5-6 diffs is something I generally do to see what a person has been contributing so as to better couch my personal sentence (or three or five) when I actually post. Taking the time to check those diffs usually writes a potential paragraph 'in my head' going in, so I can just edit that down when saying Hi,and etc.! For that reason, if this concept carries I would suggest the contribs link be customized to only list twenty--saves a lot of parsing, server time with a much briefer delay, and twenty is more than enough to see if a newbie is asking questions, talking to someone already, what they are editing, and all those 'Feel for them' kinds of things.

I just snuck this into the main template intro section on wikipedia:templates. In the words of Haley mills in a long ago movie: a scathingly brilliant idea, if I do say so myself! <G>

One set of templates which everyone needs to use more often are these, for we must all always recollect and keep in mind how difficult was the 'new' and how scary we found our first edit forays.

So cross your fingers and maybe we can generate some help and maybe even a new member or so! Along with my disdain for professional liars like politicians, con men and other advertising types of bottom dwellers rubbing elbows with ambulance chasing lawyers, there is no question in my mind that advertising makes for success... hence the counts should work. I'm apparently feeling bold along those lines since I dropped in here, as I further added this to our templates collection page:

For more about the Welcoming Committee and how you can help, see WP:WC, WP:Wc, WT:WC and WP:WELCOME. (At least I'm not looking for personal gain!)

In closing, let me quote[[Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 12#Welcome bot]|]: "... I think this is a bad idea. I believe it's like 5% or less of the users who actually create an account actually stay, so it would be a resource hog to continuously make new user talk pages." Which is a grim statistic, if true... and highlights the fact that a more diligent effort on all our parts could significantly raise that from five percent to four or five times as much -- assuming those are the one's who try but give up with the lack of support, clues as to how to go on, and without a human contact or three to encourage them and field the odd question. It makes me suspect we need a more formal committee with a co-ordinator to prod us a bit, and some kind of measures like this BOT-outside-the-box, or a schedule, etc. Most of the editors I observe that 'Die out and fade away' do so after two or three weeks of occasional edits. Hence I would conjecture, the critical timing is more in the 10-14 day window. Surely we can all do something more to close that gap! Best Regards! // FrankB 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Frank, I appreciate the thought you're putting into this, but I'm not sure about your basic premise, which is that it is vital to welcome all new users. I was never welcomed. Instead, I learned by doing, and in some ways probably had a better experience.

I do think welcoming new users is a good thing, but I really think it should be done at the most personal level, as a thoughtful message to a user you encounter in your normal Wikipedia activity. ????c??? 05:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Source of article : Wikipedia